NTD100%

Trump: We Hit Them (Iran) Hard! 99%

7/20/2026, 2:00:16 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 84.1% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 539 faulty-reasoning hits from 107 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 99% (202 of 20,876 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 99.00% of the video peer group.

Well, we feel very badly, but you knowthose 
great people, those great patriots were out there fighting that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. 
Uh if Iran has been very, very badly damaged. 
They've uh lost everything almost militarily. 
They've got very little left. They've 
got some missiles. They've got some drones. They've got some manufacturing ability, not much. 
Uh we control the straight. They don't control anything. 
So, we'll see what happens, but we hit them very hard again tonight. 
And uh we did that in honor of the probably three. 
It's probably three as opposed to two. 
Great patriots. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.6%NTD: 15.5%Confirmation Bias20.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 12.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 15.0%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic15.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 32.7%NTD: 9.1%Overconfidence Bias32.7%This article: 13.1%NTD: 22.7%Framing Effect13.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 9.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.0%NTD: 2.7%Pessimism Bias28.0%This article: 49.5%NTD: 16.9%Negativity Bias49.5%This article: 8.4%NTD: 4.6%Self-Serving Bias8.4%This article: 8.4%NTD: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error8.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 35.5%NTD: 8.1%In-Group Bias35.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 27.1%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect27.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.1%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias12.1%This article: 7.5%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.4%NTD: 14.1%Appeal to Authority23.4%This article: 15.0%NTD: 5.4%False Dilemma15.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 33.6%NTD: 17.1%Hasty Generalization33.6%This article: 5.6%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring5.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 63.6%NTD: 21.9%Appeal to Emotion63.6%This article: 8.4%NTD: 6.0%Begging the Question8.4%This article: 12.1%NTD: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 6.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 84.1%NTD: 4.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)84.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

107 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.